Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2012] FCA 563
•25 May 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 563
[2012] FCA 563
25 May 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Division of the Federal Court considered an application for an interlocutory order in the matter of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd. The applicant union sought the reinstatement of an employee, Henk Doevendans, who had been dismissed by BHP Coal Pty Ltd. The union alleged that Doevendans' termination was for prohibited reasons under sections 340 and 346 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), specifically related to his participation in industrial action. The court was required to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried on the merits of the case and whether Doevendans should be reinstated pending the resolution of the dispute.
The central legal issues before the court included the discretionary factors to be considered in granting an interlocutory order for reinstatement, the implications of the decision in Barclay v Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education [2011] FCAFC 14, and the reversal of the onus of proof. The court also needed to weigh the conduct of Doevendans, who displayed a sign describing employees or contractors passing through a protest line as "No principles Scabs No guts." The union argued that Doevendans should be reinstated as a matter of fairness and to maintain the status quo until the substantive issues were determined.
The court held that a serious question to be tried arose on the merits of the case, primarily due to the reversal of the onus of proof in favour of the employee. The court noted that the conduct of Doevendans in displaying the sign was relevant but did not outweigh the need to maintain the status quo until the substantive proceedings were concluded. Therefore, the court ordered the reinstatement of Doevendans to his former employment with BHP Coal Pty Ltd, subject to certain conditions, pending the determination of the case. The court also allowed liberty to apply for further orders and reserved the matter of costs for later determination.
The central legal issues before the court included the discretionary factors to be considered in granting an interlocutory order for reinstatement, the implications of the decision in Barclay v Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education [2011] FCAFC 14, and the reversal of the onus of proof. The court also needed to weigh the conduct of Doevendans, who displayed a sign describing employees or contractors passing through a protest line as "No principles Scabs No guts." The union argued that Doevendans should be reinstated as a matter of fairness and to maintain the status quo until the substantive issues were determined.
The court held that a serious question to be tried arose on the merits of the case, primarily due to the reversal of the onus of proof in favour of the employee. The court noted that the conduct of Doevendans in displaying the sign was relevant but did not outweigh the need to maintain the status quo until the substantive proceedings were concluded. Therefore, the court ordered the reinstatement of Doevendans to his former employment with BHP Coal Pty Ltd, subject to certain conditions, pending the determination of the case. The court also allowed liberty to apply for further orders and reserved the matter of costs for later determination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Res Judicata
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Reinstatement
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Shyshko v Minos Structural Engineering Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 912
Cases Citing This Decision
28
Guthrie v Visa Global Logistics Pty Ltd
[2021] FCCA 479
Corke-Cox v Crocker Builders Pty Ltd
[2012] FMCA 677
Silver v Rogers & Rogers
[2012] FMCA 674